If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Iran is the US bogey man and has been for years. There was no attempt made to humanize them and every attempt made to paint the revolutionaries as oppressors. I'm not saying holding the Embassy staff was right, but the Iranians were of the view that the US might try and reinstall the Shah again like they did in the 1950s.

I think they key difference is, the film doesn't shy away from some of the more questionable things that happened and more importantly it leaves it up to you the viewer to arrive at your own conclusions as to how you feel about those things. It wasn't jingoistic or celebratory, it was a sober film in terms of the man hunt and how it concluded.

Re: Iran, I understand that, it just didn't look to me that it was taking sides that much. As for the revolutionaries as oppressors, maybe I didn't notice it as my interpretation is influenced by their later behaviour.

Re: Zero Dark, it was sombre but I think the audio in the beginning is emotional manipulation. Everything following that opening audio can be justified by the suffering of those victims and questioning anything is equated basically with questioning the suffering of those victims. I don't know if it was intended but it works very well I think. In addition, it seemed to me to glorify and humanize the SEALS as basically a bunch of nice guys doing a rough work.

Anyway, I guess it's a matter of interpretation. I just found Argo better, or at least less offending.

but so much of that can be done in post-production that I can't help but feel cheated. Traditional cinematography doesn't have carte blanche to paint over mistakes; they couldn't just say "Fuck it, we'll fix it in post-production" in Skyfall.

I think your very ignorant actually of how it actually works, reading up on Life Of Pi a lot of it was there like the sea and the boat and everything, only really the Tiger was digitally added which actually makes the cinematographers job harder because they have to shoot something that's not there.

Plus with Skyfall everything is digital so they can do a lot of things and fixes in post, ever see the extras of Lord Of The Rings they got rid and changed lighting of a lot of physical shots to make it better and I et they did the same with Skyfall.

Re: Iran, I understand that, it just didn't look to me that it was taking sides that much. As for the revolutionaries as oppressors, maybe I didn't notice it as my interpretation is influenced by their later behaviour.

The scene in the bazaar where suddenly everyone's giving them the mad mullah was pretty egregious.

Re: Zero Dark, it was sombre but I think the audio in the beginning is emotional manipulation. Everything following that opening audio can be justified by the suffering of those victims and questioning anything is equated basically with questioning the suffering of those victims. I don't know if it was intended but it works very well I think. In addition, it seemed to me to glorify and humanize the SEALS as basically a bunch of nice guys doing a rough work.

Frankly I didn't know the audio was real at the time. I guess they could of rerecorded it word for word if they wanted to, however it's no more manipulative than if they'd shown footage of the planes crashing into the towers or people jumping from the floors before they collapsed. If anything it humanized the events, by giving it a voice Vs reveling in the visual spectacle. How else would you have had them set the film up exactly?

Also how did it glorify the SEALs? They killed four men and a woman, none of whom really stood much of a chance in truth given it was a night op and they were heavily outgunned and outnumbered. It was hardly Chuck Norris in the 'America Fuck yeah!!!' stakes. If anything it highlighted the reality of modern warfare that the outcome of the operation in terms of eliminating the target was a foregone conclusion. The only real gamble was over whether OBL was actually in the compound.

[/I]I think your very ignorant actually of how it actually works, reading up on Life Of Pi a lot of it was there like the sea and the boat and everything, only really the Tiger was digitally added which actually makes the cinematographers job harder because they have to shoot something that's not there.

[/I]I think your very ignorant actually of how it actually works, reading up on Life Of Pi a lot of it was there like the sea and the boat and everything, only really the Tiger was digitally added which actually makes the cinematographers job harder because they have to shoot something that's not there.

Plus with Skyfall everything is digital so they can do a lot of things and fixes in post, ever see the extras of Lord Of The Rings they got rid and changed lighting of a lot of physical shots to make it better and I et they did the same with Skyfall.

A lot of skyfall wasn't digital, they performed the stunts. Daniel Craig has training to perform the stunts.

Clearly as evident by the picture above, Life of Pi is not nearly as real as you believe it to be.

I'm not about to suggest the awards should be a popularity contest, but they really do just go for bait movies year after year. If you want an Oscar, do a period piece and release it after September. Bonus points for getting a character actor to play the role he's really good at playing.

Of course, Kate Winslett then went on to do a film set during the Holocaust...and won an oscar.

Anyhow, over the weekend I sat down and watched my third Coen brothers film, The Hudsucker Proxy and, like The Big Lebowski and Barton Fink before it, I really enjoyed it. I loved just how eccentric it all was, that the comedy was derived from both clever set-ups that were borderline breaking the fourth wall, to just out-right silly slap-stick. The latter of which only working because of the juxtaposition of being in such a serious environment. That at times it portrayed an immersive reality,
but was clearly laced with surreality. Nothing but praise for it.

On Saturday night I went to a screening of Much Ado About Nothing, a new piece by Josh Whedon which is essentially the Shakespeare play, recreated in his home in today's modern world. I wasn't familiar with the piece and it took me a while to adjust to the Shakespearian dialogue, which apart from a song sung in the background is the only form of English in the movie, so I spent the majority of it trying to understand what the hell they were saying and what the plot was about. My summary of it is that Sean Maher wanted to do his sister and was totally jelly that the stoner dude from Cabin in the Woods was going to get there first.

The cast is very good and very entertaining and it moves along at a good pace. I was initially very unsure about it when they started talking, but once the comedy started it all made fell into place.

Well, that doesn't mean much. QoS is easily top 10 and, well... This is a pretty shitty franchise. The idea behind Bond is great, but in execution it fails over and over again.

Originally Posted by sabrage

Are you fucking kidding me? This argument is done.

So what? Mauro Fiore was brought on board for Avatar after 18 months of mo-cap when they only had the 30% of live action to shoot. Then he spent months in New Zealand figuring out the look of the whole movie.
Why does physical work have so much importance for you? Would you rather have the dude in charge of the look of a movie not recognized? Animated features are already 2nd class citizens in Hollywood, there's this vague idea that they're designed by comitee so the individuals are not worthy of as much praise. It would be awful to extend this idea that to virtual cinematography or CGI heavy movies - especially since stereoscopic movies bring groundbreaking visual innovations every year.

Where do you draw the line anyway? Hugo also used a huge amount of green screen photography. Digital cameras make the job of a cinematographer much easier. Digital sensors and stereoscopic rigs allow the capture of entirely new visuals. Deakins couldn't capture those beautiful night scenes in Skyfall with a film camera - all that haze, the distant lights, the clear and sharp colours would be lost. For film purists, digital is cheating. For a special brand of idiots, Photoshop is cheating, as if photography and cinema are all about capturing the real.

Well, that doesn't mean much. QoS is easily top 10 and, well... This is a pretty shitty franchise. The idea behind Bond is great, but in execution it fails over and over again.

You and Kadayi are barking up the wrong tree, here. James Bond is an adolescent power trip for three generations who have no bar of masculinity to call their own. Even the shittiest Bond film is going to quadruple its budget at the box office, and Skyfall has proven that he holds even more sway than he has in the past. On its own merits, it's only slightly more remarkable than any other action movie that came out of America last year.

Originally Posted by SirKicksalot

So what? Mauro Fiore was brought on board for Avatar after 18 months of mo-cap when they only had the 30% of live action to shoot. Then he spent months in New Zealand figuring out the look of the whole movie.
Why does physical work have so much importance for you? Would you rather have the dude in charge of the look of a movie not recognized? Animated features are already 2nd class citizens in Hollywood, there's this vague idea that they're designed by comitee so the individuals are not worthy of as much praise. It would be awful to extend this idea that to virtual cinematography or CGI heavy movies - especially since stereoscopic movies bring groundbreaking visual innovations every year.

Where do you draw the line anyway? Hugo also used a huge amount of green screen photography. Digital cameras make the job of a cinematographer much easier. Digital sensors and stereoscopic rigs allow the capture of entirely new visuals. Deakins couldn't capture those beautiful night scenes in Skyfall with a film camera - all that haze, the distant lights, the clear and sharp colours would be lost. For film purists, digital is cheating. For a special brand of idiots, Photoshop is cheating, as if photography and cinema are all about capturing the real.

And Avatar is undoubtedly one of the shittiest movies I've ever paid money for. This isn't Terminator 2 anymore. Computer-generated effects have reached the point — since about the third Star Wars prequel, and especially 300 — where they've become banal, boring and distracting. There's nothing magic about these movies. Despite what you seem to think, nobody is going to look back on Lord of the Rings or Avatar and marvel at its technique the way I can with Sherlock Jr. or Blade Runner or The Red Balloon. Give me Philippe Halsman or Steve McCurry over your deviantart account any day.

As for the Arri Alexa M, digital photography has reached the point where it has surpassed its traditional cameras. In Deakin's own words, "the Alexa’s tonal range, color space and latitude exceed the capabilities of film." That's not cheating. If anything, it puts a greater emphasis on the just how painstaking the photography on Skyfall was. Thanks for proving my point for me.

You and Kadayi are barking up the wrong tree, here. James Bond is an adolescent power trip for three generations who have no bar of masculinity to call their own. Even the shittiest Bond film is going to quadruple its budget at the box office, and Skyfall has proven that he holds even more sway than he has in the past. On its own merits, it's only slightly more remarkable than any other action movie that came out of America last year.

Which makes it even more bizarre given you're the one chopping on about Skyfall being something everyone will still be talking about in 20 years, and painting it out to be far more of a deal than what it is.

It is. It's an institution. Few franchises have been able to survive the onslaught of societal changes like James Bond has. James Bond sells cars, multi-thousand-dollar watches and suits effortlessly. He's irrevocably part of our modern culture, and I don't view these things in a vacuum. That doesn't mean I'll ever watch it again, or that I didn't almost fall asleep halfway through it in theaters.

Judged on their own merits, Robocop and Videodrome are kind of shitty movies, elevated by their importance within our society. Birth of a Nation is one of the most profoundly offensive movies I have ever seen, not to mention horribly dated, but it's remembered as a snapshot of our cultural evolution (not to mention the evolution of the medium itself).

It is. It's an institution. Few franchises have been able to survive the onslaught of societal changes like James Bond has. James Bond sells cars, multi-thousand-dollar watches and suits effortlessly. He's irrevocably part of our modern culture, and I don't view these things in a vacuum. That doesn't mean I'll ever watch it again, or that I didn't almost fall asleep halfway through it in theaters.

Beyond Deakin's overlooked cinematography and the theme song what's there to celebrate exactly? It's all very well to run to the word 'institution' but that's not how you were pitching its presumed longevity when you lumped it in with Django, The Master, Holy Motors and The Raid as films we'll all allegedly be talking about in 20 years (I'm not even convinced any of those pictures are particularly standout in truth).

You're attributing a tone that I didn't take in my original post, and I've stated clearly why I think that Skyfall has lasting power. I could direct your same line of questioning towards The Dark Knight or Aliens. I have no personal investment in Skyfall's lasting power, and if I'm wrong then time will tell and so be it. If you want to talk about real movies and not above-average genre fare, you know where to find me.

You're attributing a tone that I didn't take in my original post, and I've stated clearly why I think that Skyfall has lasting power. I could direct your same line of questioning towards The Dark Knight or Aliens. I have no personal investment in Skyfall's lasting power, and if I'm wrong then time will tell and so be it. If you want to talk about real movies and not above-average genre fare, you know where to find me.

The way you presented it seemed to be on it's merits as a movie when you grouped it with Django & The master. Feigning sudden disinterest having eluded to its transcendence seems faintly ..off.

You seem to be making an argument for judging art entirely in a vacuum, while still commenting on lasting power, and I don't know how to entertain such an absurd notion.

Please, next up you'll be pimping Prometheus as a 'masterpiece' simply because it ties in with the alien films. It's entirely possible to assess a film on its own merits in terms of how it operates as an experience within itself, in exactly the same way that it's possible to judge a painting or a book. Did I enjoy this? If so why? If not why not? What worked? What didn't? After that you can get into where a film perhaps sits in terms of a franchise, genre or directors oeuvre, but those are secondary considerations versus how it stands up on its own.